Zihni Turkan Tombs of Pre-Classical and Classical Eras of Turkish

Transkript

148
Cilt/Volume II Sayı/Number 2 Ekim/October 2009 Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi/Journal of Social Sciences
TOMBS OF PRE-CLASSICAL AND CLASSICAL ERAS OF
TURKISH ARCHITECTURE IN ANATOLIA
Zihni Turkan∗
________________________________________________________
ABSTRACT
In the Anatolian Turkish Architecture, during the Pre-Classical and Classical eras among the
Islamic buildings, tombs which are memorial graves are the structures where we see the strongest
characteristics whereby a building acquires monumental status. The emergence of tombs as
memorial graves began in Horasan and Türkistan (Central Asia) in Xth century. It is know that the
memorial tombs seen, first in Iran and then in Anatolia from the XIth century onwards, the ones
vertical in character with pointed hoods (cupolas) evolved from tower graves which, in their turn,
evolved from the shape of nomadic tents of central Asia. In the beginning cupolas were built of
brick or stone but later stone was the only building material used in their construction. The
Anatolian Seljuklu memorial graves were divided into two types according to their shape, vertical
or horizontal in character.
During the Principalities Period (XIVth century) the construction of Seljuklu memorial graves,
horizontal and vertical in character, continued to be built and in tombs vertical in character the
variety increased.
Keywords: Tomb, Anatolia, Turkish, Seljuk, Classic, Principalities
ÖZET
Anadolu Türk Mimarisi’nde, Klâsik Öncesi ve Klâsik Devirlerde, İslâm yapıları arasında
anıtsallaşma özelliğinin en etkili olarak görüldüğü eserler, anıt-mezarlar olan türbelerdir.
Türbelerin anıt-mezar olarak ortaya çıkışı, X. Yüzyıldan itibaren Horasan ve Türkistan (Orta
Asya) yörelerinde görülmektedir. XI. Yüzyıldan itibaren önce İran’da, sonra Anadolu’da görülen
anıt-mezarlardan; sivri külâhlı, düşey karakterli türbelerin (Kümbet), kule-mezarlardan geliştiği
ve bunların da Orta Asya’daki göçebe çadırlarından kaynaklanan bir biçim olduğu bilinmektedir.
Önceleri tuğla veya taş malzeme ile inşa edilmiş kümbetlerin esas yapı malzemesi, sonradan
yalnızca taş olmuştur. Anadolu Selçuklular’da mezar-anıtları, biçimlerine göre Düşey ve Yatay
Karakterli olmak üzere iki tipe ayrılmaktadır. Beylikler Dönemi’nde (XIV. Yüzyıl) de Anadolu
∗
Yrd. Doç. Dr. Yakın Doğu Üniversitesi, Mimarlık Bölümü
YDÜ Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, C. II, No.2, (Ekim 2009)
149
Selçuklu Yatay ve Düşey Karakterli anıt-mezarları yapımı devam etmiş, Düşey Karakterli
türbelerde çeşit artmıştır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Türbe, Anadolu, Türk, Selçuklu, Klâsik, Beylikler
__________________________________________________________________
Introduction
In our research on tombs of Pre-Classical and Classical Eras of Turkish
Architecture in Anatolia, we have observed that among the Islamic buildings the
ones that exhibit effective monumental characteristics are the tombs.1
In Islamic culture, however, we rarely encounter works similar to these,
before the X. Century. The appearance of tombs as mausoleums in the Islamic
Culture dates from the X. Century in the neighborhoods of Horasan and
Turkmenistan.2 The oldest surviving tomb was built in the capital of the Abbasies.
One other of the early buildings surviving is the domed circumambulation
corridor in Kubbet-us-Sakhra.3
From the tomb-memorials found in Iran, dating back to XI. Century and
later in Anatolia, we understand that tombs, conical in shape and vertical in
character, evolved from turret shape burial places which in their turn, are linked to
nomad tent shapes converted into stone structures.4
Although the Anatolian tomb memorials, compared with Karahanlı,
Gazneli and Great Seljuk tomb-memorials, were smaller in size, a distinct
improvement can be observed in their (rich) architecture.
The earlier cupolas were built either with bricks or stones. In the
construction of the later cupolas, however, only stones were used.5 Initially,
memorial-tombs were built as separate freestanding structures, but in time they
were incorporated into mosque or madrasah buildings.
1
M. O. Arık, “Erken Devir Anadolu-Türk Mimarisi’nde Türbe Biçimleri”, Anadolu, C. XI,
Ankara 1969, p. 57.
2
Ibid., p. 57.
3
Ibid., p. 58.
4
Ibid., p. 58; C. E., Arseven, Sanat Ansiklopedisi, C. V, İstanbul, 1975, p. 2076.
5
O. Aslanapa, Türk Sanatı II, İstanbul, 1973, p. 121.
150
This research has also shown that in the Anatolian Turkish Architecture,
tombs inscribed with a great variety of different typographies went through some
changes and improvements during Pre-Classical and Post-Classical eras.
Cupolas and Tombs in Anatolia during the Seljuk Era:
Tomb-memorials are among the buildings in Anatolia that from
architectural and decorative points of view, improved greatly during the Seljuk
Era. The tomb-memorials of this era are said to be either vertical or horizontal in
character, depending on their general appearance (Fig. 1, 2). The ones horizontal
in character show further diversity like:
a) Polygonal prism shape structures with pyramid type hoods,
b) Structures like cupolas with a covering system (roof) and occupying a
section in a madrasah,
c) Square prism shape structures,
d) Cubic structures with polygonal lute or pyramid shape hoods,
e) Cylindrical shape structures with conical hoods,
f) Prism shape structure changing into cylindrical shapes with conical
hoods,
g) Cubic structures with domes,
h) Cubic structures with cupolas on top as second body with covering.
Tomb memorials are composed of three different sections;6
1) The section with the actual burial ground (the Base, the Crypt),
2) The section where the symbolic coffin is placed. (The Visiting Cell, the
Body)
3) The covering (Roof) (Fig. 3).
6
M. Sözen, et.al., Türk Mimarisi’nin Gelişimi ve Mimar Sinan, İstanbul, 1975, p. 73-74.
Figure 1- The Tomb of Vertical
In Character (M. Sözen-1975)
151
Figure 2- The Tomb of Horizontal
In Character (O. Aslanapa-1989)
ROOF
BODY
BASE
CRYPT
Figure 3- Cupola
152
The Cyrpt, a great part of which is below ground level, has a horizontal
rectangle prism appearance.7 The actual burial place in this tomb cell, also known
as “mummy house” is, in the main square shaped, although occasionally cross
shaped ones also can be seen and are covered with simple, pointed or arched roofs
(Fig. 4a, 4b, 4c). Access to the Crypt is through a small door on ground level and
down some steps. For light and ventilation there are small openings high up in the
walls.8
Figure 4a- Square Plan
Figure 4b- Circular Plan
Figure 4c- Crosswise Plan
Inside the body, which is accessible by stairs on two sides (Two sided
stairs), there is a symbolic niche (mihrab). This area is also called “Mescit” (a
small mosque). While in some works the body can be built directly on the base, in
others it is placed on the base together with a conduction component.9
The covering, depending on the shape of the body, can be pyramidal or
conic; dome shaped on the inside and like a hood on the outside.
7
Arık, op.cit., p. 65.
Ibid., p. 65.
9
Ibid., p. 65.
8
153
We have examined two different types of tombs horizontal in character;
the single iwan bodied type and the rectangular baldachin type. These tombs are
mostly encountered as from the second half of the XIII. Century.
Horizontal tombs other than these two types are only examples of some
exceptional cases.
We see a multiplicity in building materials used in the construction of
tombs in Anatolia, during the Seljuk Period, instead of just bricks which had been
used by the Great Seljuk people before their arrival in Anatolia, Karahanlı and
Gazneli people.10 Alongside tombs built of bricks only on stone foundations, we
see those built solely of stone and others built of stone up to the roof with brick
coverings.
Kırşehir Malik Gazi Cupola (1228), Kulak Cupola (end of XII. Century)
Hacı Çıkrık Cupola, Divriği Sitti Melik Cupola (1195) in Kırşehir can be shown as
examples of the Early Period (XII. Century) octagonal bodied tombs11 (Fig. 5, 6).
Figure 5- Kırşehir Melik Gazi Cupola
(O. Aslanapa - 1989)
10
11
S. K. Yetkin, Türk Mimarisi, Ankara 1970, p. 64.
Sözen, et.al., op.cit., p. 74.
Figure 6- Divriği Sitti Melik Cupola
154
Of the Seljuk Cupolas in Erzurum the most monumental one is that of
Emir Saltuk (end of XII. Century) (Fig. 7, 8). It is an octagonal structure having
triangular facades on all sides and a sylindrical lute shape cover ending in a
compressed conical hood.12 One other example of sylindrical cupolas is Döner
(Revolving) Cupola (1276) in Kayseri; a twelve cornered body on a base with
smoothed out top corners with mukarnas cornices and a conical hood on the
outside and a domed sylindrical space inside (Fig. 9). A simplified version of
Kayseri Revolving Cupola is Çifte Minareli Medrese Cupola (Twin Minaret
Madrasah Cupola) (Fig. 10).
Figure 7- Erzurum Saltuklu Cupolas
(M. Sözen - 1975)
12
Ibid., p. 75.
Figure 8- Emir Saltuk Cupola
Figure 9- Kayseri Revolving Cupola
155
Figure 10- Erzurum Twin Minaret
Madrasah Cupola (O. Aslanapa1989)
Ahlat is yet another place in Anatolia where there are many tombs.13 The
prismal bodied, pyramid hooded Şeyh Necmeddin Cupola (1222) is an example of
these (Fig. 11).
13
Ibid., p. 76.
156
Figure 11- Ahlat Şeyh Necmeddin Cupola
The only example of the most important tomb-memorials in Anatolia is
Mama Hatun Cupola in Tercan (early XIII. Century).14 This cupola which is
unlike the rest of them in appearance is entirely built of cut stone with a
surrounding wall. On the inside of this wall there are eleven niches and on the
exterior the portal is built higher than the wall15 (Fig. 12, 13, 14). The cupola has a
sylindrical body with circular segments and a segmented conical hood.
14
15
O. Aslanapa, Türk Sanatı, 2. B., İstanbul, 1989, p. 160.
Ibid., p. 169.
Figure 12- Plan of Tarcan Mama Hatun Cupola
157
Figure 13- Tarcan Mama
Hatun Cupola (O. Aslanapa
- 1989)
Figure 14- Tarcan Mama Hatun Cupola and Surrounding Walls (O. Aslanapa - 1989)
158
The tomb of Gömeç Hatun, built in late XIII. Century is given as an
example of tombs horizontal in character (iwan type) (Fig. 15, 16, 17). The facade
of this tomb, which consists of a mummy-house at the bottom, leading up to an
iwan, is of monumental quality and decorated with mosaic tiles. The iwan has got
a pointed arch and is covered with a barrel vault.16 It is designed as a small
mosque (mescit) for praying.17 Stones were used for sub-foundation and for the
lower and upper parts bricks were utilized. In the middle of lateral surfaces there
are triangular support turrets.18
Fig.15- Plan of Gömeç H. Tomb
(M. Sözen - 1975)
16
Yetkin, op.cit., p. 68.
Ibid., p. 68.
18
Ibid., p. 68.
17
Fig. 16- Mummy-House Plan of Gömeç
H. Tomb (M. Sözen - 1975)
159
Figure 17- Gömeç Hatun Tomb (M. Sözen - 1975)
The Principalities Era (XIV. Century):
The construction of tombs, both horizontal (iwan) type and vertical
(cupola) type in character, continued during the Principalities Era also, only
during this period there was an increase in the variety of cupola type tombs new
cupola types appeared.19 Alongside the sylindrical octagonal bodied cupolas,
pentagonal and hexagonal forms were seen; the baldachin type tombs appeared on
the scene. Yörükdede Cupola in Ankara (late XIV. Century) is the only example
of the pentagonal type.20 As an example of the hexagonal type tombs we can show
Hüma Hatun Tomb (1449) in Bursa. This tomb has got a dome covering on a
hexagonal body (Fig. 18). The lower part of Mevlâna Tomb in Konya (1397) is
seen as baldachin type (Fig. 19). Hasan Bey Cupola (1347) known as Güdük
Minare (Stump Minaret) built by Eretnalılar in Sivas is another type of
construction consisting of two different bodies placed on top of each other. Hasan
Bey Cupola, has got a sylindrical body on triangular brick supports on top of a
19
20
M. O. Arık, Turkish Art and Architecture, Ankara, 1985, p. 112.
Arık, Erken Devir Anadolu-Türk Mimarisi’nde Türbe Biçimleri, p. 72.
160
square base built of cut stone. Unfortunately the hood on this cupola is
demolished (Fig. 20).
Figure 18- Bursa Muradiye Tombs (M. Sözen – 1975)
Figure 19- Konya Mevlâna Tomb
(C. E. Arseven)
Figure 20- Hasan Bey Cupola
Improvements in the facade of iwan type tombs are seen during the
Principalities Era. The iwan was closed, doors and windows were installed. The
iwan of Sultan Mesut’s Tomb in Amasya with its closed arch and doorways is a
good example of improvements on the facades of iwans (Fig. 21).
Also, in polygonal bodied cupolas portal structures are seen. Kırşehir Aşık
Paşa Tomb (1322) with its long and narrow portal along one side is the best
161
example of this (Fig. 22, 23). In vertical type tombs, dome covered entrance
porches were designed. Şeyh Halili Cupola in Musalla, Konya and Sinan Paşa
Cupola in Gelibolu (Gallipoli) with their entrance porches are examples of this
type (Fig. 24, 25). The entrance units added to the body in Emir Ali (1350) and Ali
Cafer (mid. XIV. Century) cupolas are further examples of improvements that
took place during Principalities Era (Fig. 26).
Fig. 21- Plan of Amasya Sultan Mesud Tomb (M. Sözen - 1975)
Figure 22- Kırşehir Aşık Paşa Tomb
Figure 23- Portal of Aşık Paşa
Tomb (O. Aslanapa – 1973)
162
Figure 24- Konya Şeyh Halili Tomb
(C. E. Arseven)
Figure 25- Gallipoli Sinan Paşa Tomb
(M. Sözen - 1975)
Figure 26- Kayseri Ali Cafer Cupola (C. E. Arseven)
163
An occasionally encountered rare type of tomb is the one which is half
baldachin and half closed, like the Cupola of Ahlat Emir Bayındır (1492)2121 (Fig.
27). Another rare type is the cupola with an octagonal lower and sixteen sided
upper body. Sungur Bey (1335) and Hüdavent Hatun (1312) cupolas in Niğde are
examples of this distinct variety (Fig. 28, 29).
One other type built during the Principalities Period is the tomb which was
built by combining the horizontal iwan type with the vertical cupola type, like
Çerkez Bey Tomb in Çayıralan. This tomb is created by the addition of an iwan in
front of an octagonal prism shape cupola.22
Because the Principalitiy of Karamanoğulları was very ambitious and
wanted to take the place of the Seljuk State it perpetuated their style and
traditions.23 The cupola of Alâeddin Bey in Karaman (end of XIV. Century) which
exibits a different architectural character to the tombs of the Seljuk Era, has a
twelve sided body and a conical hood with a ledge. It is built of cut stone (Fig. 30).
Figure 27- Ahlat Emir Bayındır Cupola Figure 28- Niğde Sungur Bey Cupola
(M. Sözen - 1975)
21
Arık, Erken Devir Anadolu-Türk Mimarisi’nde Türbe Biçimleri, p. 93.
23
O., Aslanapa, Türk Sanatı II, İstanbul, 1973. p. 202.
22
164
Figure 29- Niğde Hüdavent Hatun Cupola
Figure 30- Karaman Alaaddin Bey
Cupola (O. Aslanapa - 1989)
The differences and characteristics in the tombs of the Ottoman
Principality can be enumerated in the following ways.
1) Tombs which have divisions on the floor where the Cyrpt is, as seen in
the Green Tomb, Bursa (1421) (Fig. 31a, 31b),
2) Tombs where a lute shape polygon is placed on top of a polygonal
body with a single dome as an outer cover.
3) Tombs built under Byzantine influence with corridors all around the
inside perimeter.
4) Tombs like that of Sultan Murad II, Bursa (1451), where the main
space consists of two sections, one within the other, with the inner
section housing a space covered with a dome on pillars and pedestals
(Fig. 32a, 32b).24
5) Also during this period, tombs were built where no Crypt could be
found and this has thrown some doubt on whether a Crypt existed or
not in this type of tombs.
24
Sözen, et.al., op.cit., p. 82-83.
Figure 31a- Plans of Bursa Yeşil Tomb (M. Sözen - 1975)
Figure 31b- Sections of Bursa Yeşil Tomb (M. Sözen - 1975)
Figure 32a- Plan of Sultan II. Murad
Tomb (M. Sözen - 1975)
Figure 32b- Section of Sultan II.
Murad Tomb (M. Sözen - 1975)
165
166
Classical Ottoman Art
In the tomb architecture of the Classical Ottoman Art Era, the type
horizontal in character is not seen.
In the architecture of tombs vertical in character, the body got more and
more elaborate richer facade compositions were introduced.25 In cupolas
polygonal bodies continued in use; the most widely used polygonal body was the
octagonal type. In addition to this, twelve and sixteen sided bodies also were seen
during this period. The two-floor frontal arrangement took its place among the
concepts of rich facade designs. In the planning of this type of facades a
homogenous appearance was achieved by using facades of similar character that
complimented each other.
On the exterior, porches assumed importance and were used in the whole
area. On the interior, keeping the space undivided the gallery system was employed.
The tomb of Kanuni Sultan Süleyman built by Architect Sinan in 1566, an
outstanding example of this period, has got an octagonal body, dome covering and
porch all around its outside perimeter.27 The tomb which has a gallery inside and
fringe decorations on the outside reflects the richness of the facade (Fig. 33a, 33b).
26
Figure 33a- Plan of K. Sultan
Süleyman Tomb (M. Sözen - 1975)
25
Arık, Turkish Art and Architecture, p. 168.
Ibid., p. 168-169.
27
26
Figure 33b- K. Sultan Süleyman
Tomb (M. Sözen - 1975)
167
One other monumental tomb is that of Sultan Selim II (1577) in St. Sophia.
The polygonal gallery built inside a cubic body with tempered corners projects a
different type altogether.28 Eaves were built around the entrance section only (Fig.
34a, 34b).
During the Classical Period, cross plan type tombs also appeared. The
tomb of Şehzade Mehmet (1543-1544) with its decorative frontage has taken its
place among the tombs of the Ottoman Classical Period. The frontal, in addition
to the porch and ribbed dome which were used during the Principality Period, too,
was also adorned by coloured stones and baked earth and further enriched by the
use of glazed tiles29 (Fig. 35).
Figure 34a- Plan of Selim II Tomb
II Tomb (M. Sözen - 1975)
Figure 34b- Front Elevation of Selim
(M. Sözen - 1975)
28
O. Aslanapa, Türk Sanatı, 2. B., İstanbul, 1989, p. 270.
29
Ibid., p. 288.
168
Figure35- İstanbul Şehzade Mehmet Tomb (O. Aslanapa - 1989)
Conclusion
According to our research, among the buildings of Islamic culture, tombs,
which attained a monumental nature, managed to maintain their pre-classical
period prominence during the Ottoman Classical Era, also improving all the time
as from X. Century onwards. Tombs, the examples of which we encounter in
every part of Anatolia, continued in existence in Anatolian Turkish Architecture,
too, and with an increased number in their types. Also, during this period, there is
a greater variety in the building materials used in their construction of tombs.
Whereas in earlier periods, the changes and improvements in the interior
and exterior of the tombs secured richness in typology, during the Classical Era,
in addition to using polygonal bodies there were improvements were made in the
composition of the exteriors. The use of rich decorations, arcades and eaves
increased the vivacity of the facade and strengthened the monumental nature of
the tomb. Furthermore, the totality of the space inside the tomb was maintained by
169
the changes made and enriched by the use of galleries, during this period. The
octagonal prism type tomb was the most widely used variation in every period.
The iwan type tombs seen in pre-classical times could not survive the
Classical Period. In the main structure of tombs, the use of two different but
homogenized floors as a single floor, culminated in new research in the Classical
Period.
Byzantine influence upon the works of Principality Era is also seen at
times, in many works, Pre-Turkish Era traditions are predominant. The formation
of a dominant mode in tomb-monuments paved the way to the formation of
Classical Period Architecture.
170
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arık, M. O., “Erken Devir Anadolu-Türk Mimarisi’nde Türbe Biçimleri”,
Anadolu, C. XI, Ankara 1969, pp. 57-100.
Arık, M. O., “Turkish Architecture in Asia Minor in the Period of the Turkish
Emirates”, The Art and Architecture of Turkey, Oxford 1980, pp. 132-135.
Arık, M. O., Turkish Art and Architecture, Ankara 1985.
Arseven, C. E., Sanat Ansiklopedisi, C. V, İstanbul 1975.
Arseven, C. E., Türk Sanatı Tarihi, III. Fascicle, İstanbul, (without date).
Aslanapa, O., Türk Sanatı II, İstanbul, 1973.
Aslanapa, O., Yüzyıllar Boyunca Türk Sanatı (14. Yüzyıl), İstanbul, 1977.
Aslanapa, O., Mimar Sinan’ın Hayatı ve Eserleri, Ankara, 1988.
Aslanapa, O., Türk Sanatı, 2. B., İstanbul, 1989.
Hasol, D., Ansiklopedik Mimarlık Sözlüğü, 5 B., İstanbul 1993.
Sözen, M., et.al., Türk Mimarisi’nin Gelişimi ve Mimar Sinan, İstanbul, 1975.
Yetkin, S. K., Türk Mimarisi, Ankara, 1970.

Zihni Turkan Tombs of Pre-Classical and Classical Eras of Turkish

Transkript

Benzer belgeler

the role of parent-child relationship on negative behavior and school

PDF ( 2 )

Uşak Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2013 Kış (6/1) Yabancı Dil

machine prices and the mechanization of ottoman agriculture, 1860

CURRICULUM VITAE

basın bildirisi - Toplumsal Cinsiyet ve Kadın Çalışmaları Anabilim Dalı

a critical approach and analysis of a social studies report